Effects of External Conceptual Models and Verbal Explanations on Shared Understanding in Small Groups

Effective conceptual modeling requires a shared understanding of the concepts that are found in an application domain. Achieving such understanding, especially for large design problems, is a challenging, and long-standing problem. Conceptual models tend to be either subjective representations of individuals that require mutual knowledge sharing between members of a modeling team or externalized normative representations that require knowledge transfer from model preceptors to model receptors. Model preceptors have either created a conceptual model or conceived it by another preceptor. In prior studies, normative conceptual models were used to investigate knowledge transfer between preceptors and receptors. This research, in contrast, investigates knowledge transfer of conceptual models between model owners and receptors. A 2x2 study design with modeling novices was used that varied the type of conceptual modeling language and the type of information system. Further testing investigated whether knowledge transfers were affected by additional verbal explanations given by the preceptor. Each modeler was provided access to two conceptual modeling languages that naturally support structure or process representations. The study investigated whether the use of particular conceptual modeling languages differ in their effects on shared understanding between two persons and whether additional verbal explanations might increase shared understanding. The results of this exploratory empirical study provide useful insights into the use of Conceptual Modeling Language pairs for shared understanding in conceptual modeling in small groups.

[1]  Vijay K. Vaishnavi,et al.  Theory Development in Design Science Research: Anatomy of a Research Project , 2008 .

[2]  J M Schraagen,et al.  Effects of two types of intra-team feedback on developing a shared mental model in Command & Control teams , 2000, Ergonomics.

[3]  Rocky Ross,et al.  Mental models , 2004, SIGA.

[4]  J. Fodor,et al.  Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis , 1988, Cognition.

[5]  Peter Meso,et al.  Conceptualizing Systems for Understanding: An Empirical Test of Decomposition Principles in Object-Oriented Analysis , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[7]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Planning, Shared Mental Models, and Coordinated Performance: An Empirical Link Is Established , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Allen S. Lee,et al.  Information systems and qualitative research , 1997 .

[9]  N. F. Noy,et al.  Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology , 2001 .

[10]  Cathy Urquhart,et al.  Exploring analyst-client communication: using grounded theory techniques to investigate interaction in informal requirements gathering , 1997 .

[11]  Hausi A. Müller,et al.  Cognitive design elements to support the construction of a mental model during software exploration , 1999, J. Syst. Softw..

[12]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[13]  Tuure Tuunanen,et al.  A Contigency Model for Requirements Development , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Daniel L. Sherrell,et al.  Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 1999 .

[15]  Peter Fettke,et al.  How Conceptual Modeling Is Used , 2009, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Peter Meso,et al.  The Effects of Decomposition Quality and Multiple Forms of Information on Novices' Understanding of a Domain from a Conceptual Model , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[17]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[18]  Alistair Cockburn,et al.  Writing Effective Use Cases , 2000 .

[19]  강문설 [서평]「The Unified Modeling Language User Guide」 , 1999 .

[20]  Gwen M. Wittenbaum,et al.  Putting Communication into the Study of Group Memory , 2003 .

[21]  Martin Fowler,et al.  Analysis patterns - reusable object models , 1996, Addison-Wesley series in object-oriented software engineering.

[22]  Paul C. van Fenema,et al.  Cocreating Understanding and Value in Distributed Work: How Members of Onsite and Offshore Vendor Teams Give, Make, Demand, and Break Sense , 2008, MIS Q..

[23]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Issues and Challenges in Ubiquitous Computing , 2002 .

[24]  S. Kosslyn Image and mind , 1982 .

[25]  Elizabeth J. Davidson,et al.  Technology Frames and Framing: A Socio-Cognitive Investigation of Requirements Determination , 2002, MIS Q..

[26]  J. Habermas Theory of Communicative Action , 1981 .

[27]  S. Pinker,et al.  Connections and symbols , 1988 .

[28]  Veda C. Storey,et al.  An ontological analysis of the relationship construct in conceptual modeling , 1999, TODS.

[29]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A Translation Approach to Portable Ontologies , 1993 .

[30]  E. Salas,et al.  Shared mental models in expert team decision making. , 1993 .

[31]  Saonee Sarker,et al.  An Exploration into the Process of Requirements Elicitation: A Grounded Approach , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[32]  Yair Wand,et al.  Using Ontology Languages for Conceptual Modeling , 2010, J. Database Manag..

[33]  Yair Wand,et al.  Theoretical foundations for conceptual modelling in information systems development , 1995, Decis. Support Syst..

[34]  Hemant Jain,et al.  Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research , 2011, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[35]  Mark Schafer,et al.  Individual and Group Decision Making , 2011 .

[36]  J. Habermas The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

[37]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  A Sender-Receiver Framework for Knowledge Transfer , 2005, MIS Q..

[38]  Wolfgang Maass,et al.  Pattern-Based Approach for Designing with Diagrammatic and Propositional Conceptual Models , 2011, DESRIST.